WaMu Gave Grandma's Money to Crooks

Charles Duhigg of the New York Times would like to speak to you.

Specifically, he would like to speak to Fred of Integrated Check Technologies, who left a comment here, or anyone involved with ICT (or with companies named Netchex or Payment Processing Center), or who has worked with Thomas Cimicato.

You may reach Charles through the New York Times website or at the number he left here. If you need his email address, email me and I'll be happy to provide it.

Labels: CCR, ICT, ITP

The state investigator I've been corresponding with every now and then wrote me today to note that the story I was fed by CCR (see last post) may really be true. She included the following link:

Petro Slams Columbus Firm For Helping Telemarketing Fraud

My question to her: why would they stop the company that was processing the refunds?

Well, in fact, as the Ohio AG's Office press release indicates, this was the company that was taking in the money. I'm sure they were taking in a lot more money than they were giving back -- if they were giving back any at all.

The release notes:



This would explain why my grandma's checks were being cashed in Cleveland. (Ohio is quite the hotbed of corruption.)

Good news -- but then again, I'm sure the crooks behind this are already up and running under a different name. If not, someone's sure to have jumped in their place.

Ultimately, I'm curious to see what kind of sentence, if any, these guys get (if convicted.)

I'm adding them to the watch file:

Labels: CCR, ICT, ITP

Called CCR back today for the first time in weeks just to check in on the status of my grandma's refund. I was informed that the company that processes the refund for ITP (the company that ripped off my grandma) is no longer in business. ITP is still in business. CCR is still in business. But the processing -- whose name she didn't even know -- was out of business, so the refund can't be processed.

She told me I should have my grandma's bank file an affidavit. When I asked her with whom the bank should file the affidavit, her attitude, which wasn't great to start, soured even further. When I pressed her to explain how this would help, she finally hung up.

If you need to contact CCR, their number is 866-898-7489.

I contacted Wamu to inquire about filing an affidavit, but Andrew Samuel was once more unavailable to take my call. I left him a voicemail asking him to call me back today.

Labels: CCR, ICT, ITP

If you're wondering where all the manufacturing jobs in America are going or have gone, read on.

The part about not being able to do business in Ohio is interesting. I guess Ohio has already gone after this company.

As with other posts, this is published anonymously with the permission of the person who emailed me:



I referred the person who wrote me to some state investigators.

Labels: CCR, ICT, ITP

I received this email yesterday from someone identifying himself or herself as an ex-CCR Employee. The portrait of Client Care Relations the anonymous emailer provides more or less accords with the one I've put together in working with them. What particularly galls me is the way Washington Mutual appears from its letter to cooperate with outfits like this.

In his letter, Andrew Samuel of Washington Mutual states, "The Forgery Department is very familiar with the different telemarketing companies, and knows which ones provide a recording of the verbal authorization." As the ex-CCR employee here notes, "This is not to say that people were not mislead off of the recordings... These recordings are played to the bank representatives if they call to inquire. They hear the customer’s authorization and some will not reverse transaction even if it is within 60 days.":



Google Maps: Strategic Commercial Solutions Headquarters

(As far as I can tell, not an empty lot.)

Labels: CCR, ICT, ITP

Last week I noted ("Refund in Process") I was told by Client Care Relations (CCR), 1-866-898-7489, the company that represents Identity Theft Prevention (ITP), the company that scammed my grandmother, that a refund was in process and she should be receiving a check within 7-10 business days.

I called back today to check up on the status of the refund check. To my utter shock and amazement, I learned that there had been a change in the status of the refund. David, employee #533, informed me that I had been misinformed by Louis (who really appeared at the time to have a very firm grasp of the process). A check has not yet been cut, much less mailed.

David stated that the check first would attempt to be directly deposited to my grandmother's Wamu account, which has now been closed of course. If that failed, then the process for cutting a refund check would start, but he did not know how long that would take or what exactly is involved. He said it could take several months.

A couple other interesting/disturbing facts I learned:

1. When I asked for the address of the company, he gave me a new address:


First Google result: www.actionseniors.org

My question: why is the Action Alliance of Senior Citizens of Greater Philadelphia partnering with these scoundrels?

I think I've found the answer: they're a front for this crooked company.

The web page list a phone number: 1-800-454-2290. I'm currently on hold with this number but there's no no sign that anyone is ever going to pick up.

2. He said there was also another case on record for my grandma dating back to 9/15/2005. This involved another CCR client, Priority Assistance Group, that charged or attempted to charge my grandmother $398 (forget 3 -- 398 must be the magic number) for Group Prescription coverage.

My grandma never made any reference to this, making me think one of two things happened:

1. When the company tried to cash this check, it got stopped in process -- perhaps by Wamu (which would only make their failure to do so in this instance all the more maddening.)

2. The check was cashed but my grandma either overlooked it (not likely) or was too embarrassed to mention it (which I doubt, too.)

In any event, a refund has been requested on that case, too. It's in process.

I am going to write to the Canadian Competition Bureau again and apprise them of the latest news on my dealings with CCR.

Labels: CCR, ICT, ITP

I could've sworn I was on the Do Not Call List. Whatever the case, Bank of America has been calling me a lot lately. I used to just tell them I wasn't in and offer to take a message when they asked for me. Now I say, "Good I'm glad you've called. I was just about to call you. I heard about all these pin numbers being stolen this week. Has my ATM card been compromised?"

Usually, they'll say something like, "Uh, you'll want to speak to another department," or, "Actually, I'm calling from the insurance company B of A has sold your personal information to," and give me a different number to call.

"Thank you. I'll do that now. Good bye." Click.

Actually, you could probably use this strategy with any unsolicited call -- not just banks. Just don't give them any personal information about you.

Labels: CCR

Client Care Relations (CCR), 1-866-898-7489, the company that represents Identity Theft Protect (ITP), the company that scammed my grandmother, claims that a refund of the full amount of my grandma's check (the first one) is now being processed by Paramount Processing, the company that handles their refund processing. Yes, the business partnerships are all rather amazingly octopussian in nature. All this to rip off senior citizens over the phone -- that's free market synergy for you!

My grandma's not counting her refund checks before their cashed, but I don't doubt that they are sending her a refund.

Why? Was I too harsh in judging these business as sleazy scam artists?

Of course not. They just don't want too much of a fuss. They have enough victims that roll over meekly or don't even know where to start in trying to recover their money, that it's much simpler for them to just sweep away the troublemakers as quickly as possible.

What's funny is CCR was originally telling me that I had to send the junk mail my grandmother received back to the fraud merchants at ITP and call them back with a mailing receipt number before they could start processing the refunds. However, I called today to confirm the mailing information and I was told that the refund was already in process and a check should reach my grandma within the next couple weeks.

I went ahead and sent the material back by certified mail to the address CCR originally gave me:

Identity Theft Protection
1117 Desert Lane #100
Las Vegas, NV 89102

I'm curious to see what happens to the package, since this is the latest Google satellite photo of that location:



My certified receipt number:
7005 3110 0002 2159 9452

Feel free to track along from home.

Labels: CCR

not pictured: junk mail flyers

Labels: CCR

The original fraudulent activity on my grandmother's bank account in December came to her attention when she received her monthly statement from Washington Mutual at the end of January. She immediately phoned WM to initiate a fraud claim (which was rejected.) Yet, on February 2, a different company (in name at least) drew up a second check for $299 which, too, was unquestioningly processed by WM a couple days later and the funds transfered from my grandmother's account to some sleazeball affliliated with an account with National City Bank (no, the name doesn't make any sense to me either) in Cleveland, Ohio.

The check looks in every way identical to the first except for the name of the company to which it's paid, the memo (it says is for "Internet Services and Power Saver" -- my grandma does not have a computer) and the phone number in authorization statement on it, which reads



For the record, it was not guaranteed by the payee -- in fact, it was entirely unbeknownst to her -- and if you do have questions, call her first. Because if you call that number, you will get an automated system that eventually dumps you in a full voicemail box.

I'm going to call back later and record what happens and put a link to the file here. But first, I am going to try to get photos of the two checks uploaded later today.

If you're trying to learn more about PowerTamers, Google is not much help.

Labels: CCR, ICT, ITP

added as brief a summary of the matter as possible at the top of the page for get-to-the-point visitors to this site. hopefully, it's short and punchy enough to get someone's attention.

Labels: CCR, ICT, ITP, wamu

A couple things I thought worth noting related to the last post:

1. Harrison Adams
Again, the name of the verification officer. His company's name: Identity Theft Protection, or ITP.

2. 1-888-742-0880
This is the number he gives at the end of the recording to call if there are any questions. To get the recording, I called 1-866-898-7489 -- the number that had been printed on the check (in the box where the signature usually goes.)

3. Client Care Relations
This is the company that handles customer support (i.e. runs interference) for ITP. There phone number is. (It says something that their operators were much more professional and helpful than Washington Mutual's, even though I was probably more aggressive and demanding -- though always polite -- in my question of them.) This article I found is worth a look:

Hundreds hit by alleged Net drug scam

From the article:



The article led me to this site, run (I hope) by a Canadian government agency:

https://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/internet/index.cfm

There I filed the following complaint:



The bureau's phone number is: 1-800-348-5358

Labels: CCR

I've had to revise my position. I called the company that serves as customer relations for the merchant that scammed my grandmother today. I listened several times to the recording which they had on file and claimed was evidence of my grandmother's informed consent to withdraw funds from her account. With their consent, I made a copy using my computer microphone.

The first time I heard it, I was convinced that it was spliced together from several conversations by the merchant so that it could fraudulently represent her authorization. This was in large part because of what my grandmother had told me had happened. But I forced myself to be fair and check with my grandmother to determine whether this was in fact a manipulated recording or the actual conversation that took place.

I played it for my grandmother over the phone this afternoon. She wasn't positive it wasn't edited, but said that she remembers being talking to a couple different people over the course a several calls. The trick of the scam hinged upon two factors:

1. The operator who originally called her transferred her to "the verification officer on duty," Harrison Adams. Harrison Adams had a very assertive demeanor and rapidly asked my grandmother to verify a few pieces of information, including her name, address, bank, checking account number, and routing number. The second operator is the small print guy who actually extracts the words from her that may (I'd like to emphasize the legally unsettled status of this conclusion) transform this scam from outright criminal fraud into a legal but highly unscrupulous, totally scumbag fleecing.

2. Specifically, the con hinges on the way in which Harrison Adams phrases his request to withdraw funds from her account. The first operator told her that the funds would be deposited into her account. Harrison Adams first states:

"...All right, do you one-time registration [sic] for the ITP ID Protection Package."

It starts as a question, but he does not leave room for her response. This must be deliberate. I don't doubt she wouldn't have said yes, had he asked her to affirm this, for, as she explains, more than the money promised her, she simply wished to be done with all the calls. (Why, if this is what she really wanted, she just didn't say, "No thanks, goodbye," is a question I leave for the psychologists and anthropologists out there to answer.)

Then her purported authorization. The agent says:

"Now Virgina [name altered to protect identity], $398 that you requested to be drafted from the checking account the 20th day of December, 2005, which is today. Is this correct?"

The fraud hinges on the word 'from'. Before this, the agent had emphasized the funds would be deposited into her account. Now they say they will be drawn from -- the preposition goes by fast, garbled, and unnoticed.

With my grandmother's consent, I will include a link to this recording here. I will dub over any personal information mentioned to protect her privacy.

Even if this were the actual transcript of their conversation, does this constitute a legal authorization? The agent and his company, ITP, (may they all rot with syphillus) obviously believed so. They drew up a check in my grandmother's name and cashed it with their bank.

Washington Mutual believed it was a legitimate authorization, too. They processed the check and transferred the funds from her account to the scam artists' account -- despite the fact that it was not a check from her checkbook, did not have her signature, did not look like any other check that had ever been presented against her account, and was paid to an out-of-state company.

The fact is, at least according to two representative from Washington Mutual I've spoken with, this check would have been processed and the funds withdrawn even if my grandmother had never said anything over the phone that sounded like an authorization. And there is no ceiling on the amount in which such a check could be written. The only limit to the amount which a dishonest merchant could take out of your account by printing a check with your information on it is the funds available in your account.

In a case where the unscrupulous merchant simply printed up a check without getting a voice recording of their victim, the difference would be that, when my grandmother initiated a fraud claim (as she did), Washington Mutual might actually stop payment or, if it were too late for that, call back the funds. It would do nothing to prevent the same dishonest company from doing the same thing tomorrow. Actually I learned yesterday that my grandmother had been hit a second time for $200 on this same account. A different company in name, but same type of check -- and it was presented after she had contacted Washington Mutual to initiate the fraud claim.

With my grandmother's consent, I'll also post a copy of the check -- marked to protect her identity -- here. Why such a check would ever be accepted is one of the questions Washington Mutual has not answered for me yet? I can see no necessary use for such an instrument except for fraud.

I'll post more on my grandmother and my interactions with Washington Mutual at the next opportunity.

Labels: CCR, ICT, ITP